I think predictability is necessary for some stories (with suffering) to be enjoyable

[Sapphire Guard]

Are we sure that GRRM had a plan for how he was going to end it?

Chekhov was writing short plays with no space for wasted time. Gigantic fantasy novels operate on a different metric. Adhere to that too religiously, and you end up with very predictable stories because you can't write red herrings in crime novels or do worldbuilding that isn't directly relevant to the plot.

[Lord Raziere]

Fans don't hate change. Ask any fan what new thing they'd like to see in their fandom, and they will talk you to death.

They hate poor quality. Even the possibility of something awful existing in their fandom is likely to be met with dislike. But if the thing actually turns out to be really good, that concern will be quickly forgotten.

Of course, when something crappy is pumped out, and fans hate on it, and the producers try to defend it by bashing their own fans, well...that always ends in a giant mess. Generally speaking, bashing your customers is not a winning play.

But whether they are right about the changes being good is up for debate. just because someone's been in a franchise the longest doesn't mean they know what is best for it. now you can point to examples where the fans were right, and you probably right about those examples, but on general principle, I can't take fans word as somehow always right.

Good storytelling.

Highly subjective. people would have to agree on what that is before we can do it, so that particular bit is about as helpful as telling someone to "not lose".

but this is off my point, my point is: whether they subversive or not has nothing to do with how bad these things are. subversion is a tool. a tool being used badly is bad writing, not subversion being bad. you can say what you want about GRRM but at least he has the courtesy to keep his stuff in his own universes and not ruin anyone elses. however these "subversive" endings listed in this thread just seem to be downer endings, so not really subversive at all given such things are really old, they're just different a different trope.

so your an audience that really doesn't like downer endings or tragedies. okay, whatever, I don't like those either, but all our opinions are subjective. what really is being protested against here is grimdark here is OSP's thoguhts on that since Red says it better than I could ever do. But if your really talking about subversion and the GOT disaster here is the OSP video for that: plot twists

while I don't like grimdark, its not inherently bad writing, and a plot twist isn't inherently bad writing either, but proper twists need to make sense with what comes before it. both the twisted and untwisted version of the experience just need to be valid ways of enjoying the experience.

that some writers don't have a good sense of proper set up is no reason to dislike the act of subversion or twists itself.

[Saintheart]

But whether they are right about the changes being good is up for debate. just because someone's been in a franchise the longest doesn't mean they know what is best for it. now you can point to examples where the fans were right, and you probably right about those examples, but on general principle, I can't take fans word as somehow always right.



Highly subjective. people would have to agree on what that is before we can do it, so that particular bit is about as helpful as telling someone to "not lose".

but this is off my point, my point is: whether they subversive or not has nothing to do with how bad these things are. subversion is a tool. a tool being used badly is bad writing, not subversion being bad. you can say what you want about GRRM but at least he has the courtesy to keep his stuff in his own universes and not ruin anyone elses. however these "subversive" endings listed in this thread just seem to be downer endings, so not really subversive at all given such things are really old, they're just different a different trope.

so your an audience that really doesn't like downer endings or tragedies. okay, whatever, I don't like those either, but all our opinions are subjective. what really is being protested against here is grimdark here is OSP's thoguhts on that since Red says it better than I could ever do. But if your really talking about subversion and the GOT disaster here is the OSP video for that: plot twists

while I don't like grimdark, its not inherently bad writing, and a plot twist isn't inherently bad writing either, but proper twists need to make sense with what comes before it. both the twisted and untwisted version of the experience just need to be valid ways of enjoying the experience.

that some writers don't have a good sense of proper set up is no reason to dislike the act of subversion or twists itself.

I'm not sure how you dismiss "good storytelling" as being wholly subjective and in the same breath assert that "a tool being used badly is bad writing." That strikes me as a wholly subjective opinion also and therefore as bad for illogic as you accuse my assertion of being.

That's the problem with the Coward's Castle of relativism in art and life:"Everything is subjective, so you can't judge whether anything is good or bad. Well, unless it's something I like/don't like, then it's everyone else that is wrong and not me."

And as for the suggestion that people have to agree on what good storytelling is before a judgment can be made, well, by definition a movie that tanks at the box office or is reviled widely by the fandom is a pretty good indicator that a lot of people agreed about whether the storytelling was good or not in that.

[Lord Raziere]

I'm not sure how you dismiss "good storytelling" as being wholly subjective and in the same breath assert that "a tool being used badly is bad writing." That strikes me as a wholly subjective opinion also and therefore as bad for illogic as you accuse my assertion of being.

That's the problem with the Coward's Castle of relativism in art and life:"Everything is subjective, so you can't judge whether anything is good or bad. Well, unless it's something I like/don't like, then it's everyone else that is wrong and not me."

Hey I hate subjectivity, don't make go through this again! I Agree with you on that! But then people said I was wrong, and now I try to be socially acceptable with that so that I don't get dogpiled by people saying its all subjective when I don't really agree with that but people insist that I can't and now I turn around and finally meet someone who shares my opinion and they criticizing me for it and now I just feel like I can't win!

screw it! I'm going back to my old opinion that subjectivity and popularity is a stupid thing to measure anything by if this is just going to turn into another instance of of me getting criticized no matter what.

[Saintheart]

Hey I hate subjectivity, don't make go through this again! I Agree with you on that! But then people said I was wrong, and now I try to be socially acceptable with that so that I don't get dogpiled by people saying its all subjective when I don't really agree with that but people insist that I can't and now I turn around and finally meet someone who shares my opinion and they criticizing me for it and now I just feel like I can't win!

screw it! I'm going back to my old opinion that subjectivity and popularity is a stupid thing to measure anything by if this is just going to turn into another instance of of me getting criticized no matter what.

Whoa, okay! Friendly fire!

[Tyndmyr]

That's the problem with the Coward's Castle of relativism in art and life:"Everything is subjective, so you can't judge whether anything is good or bad. Well, unless it's something I like/don't like, then it's everyone else that is wrong and not me."

And as for the suggestion that people have to agree on what good storytelling is before a judgment can be made, well, by definition a movie that tanks at the box office or is reviled widely by the fandom is a pretty good indicator that a lot of people agreed about whether the storytelling was good or not in that.

I'm on board with this.

There is absolutely subjectivity in preferences. I don't usually pick romance books to read, that's a straightforward genre preference for me. But it'd be silly for me to claim that all romance novels are equally bad, merely because I don't like them. There are no doubt good and bad ones, and a range in between.

And hell, sometimes one can even like something that's not very good. That's fine. I've had a great time watching some truly terrible movies, but laughing at Birdemic doesn't make it a good film.

Are we sure that GRRM had a plan for how he was going to end it?

Chekhov was writing short plays with no space for wasted time. Gigantic fantasy novels operate on a different metric. Adhere to that too religiously, and you end up with very predictable stories because you can't write red herrings in crime novels or do worldbuilding that isn't directly relevant to the plot.

I suspect he had a general outline, but probably not a specific idea. Jon Snow is probably important to it, the white walkers invading is important, the worging thing is important...he very carefully built up certain elements throughout the entire series, so he likely had some purpose for them.

But it's certainly possible that the whole ball of plots is tangled enough that he doesn't have a good way to sort it out, or at least...doesn't want to go through the tedium of doing so. At this point, he's probably already good on book money for life, if he doesn't want to do more, he really doesn't have to. He's got enough freedom to write what he wants at this point.

And maybe he just finds smaller stuff like the Dunk and Egg bits to be more satisfying. They're quite decent writing, by the way, if you want some GoT things.

[Saintheart]

That's fine. I've had a great time watching some truly terrible movies, but laughing at Birdemic doesn't make it a good film.

Pointless side story: when W.S. Gilbert was suing The Era for defamation, for some reason Gilbert's opinion of a certain play by a certain theatre director came up. Gilbert was cross-examined by the leading advocate of the day, Edmund Carson:

Carson: Would you describe The Entertainers as a bad musical comedy?
Gilbert: I would call it bad. I believe the director calls it musical comedy.

[GloatingSwine]

And as for the suggestion that people have to agree on what good storytelling is before a judgment can be made, well, by definition a movie that tanks at the box office or is reviled widely by the fandom is a pretty good indicator that a lot of people agreed about whether the storytelling was good or not in that.

I dunno. A lot of movies that do badly at the box office are subsequently hailed as great. (See: Both Blade Runner movies)

Storytelling has structural rules, and if you don't pay attention to the structural rules the story doesn't feel right. Take as an example Man of Steel.

Early on in Man of Steel we see Clark rescuing people from an oil rig using his kryptonian abilities, but the movie then spends a considerable amount of time attempting to wring dramatic tension from the question of whether Clark will make the decision to use his kryptonian abilities to save people.

There is no drama, because we know that he is going to decide to do so. We saw that at the start.

That doesn't mean you can't open the story with that oil rig scene, but it does mean that you can't make "will the character do the thing" a dramatic question when you've started with the answer. What has to follow from that is different. It could be a mystery about how a seemingly normal person can be so strong (if Superman wasn't a 90 year old IP who everyone already knows), it could be a dramatic cold open to establish a character who will proceed in the same vein from there, but it can't be a dramatic question about whether the thing we've already seen will, in fact, happen.

[Saintheart]

^^^^

Clearly my tongue was not deeply enough into my cheek to be adequately visible on that one.

[A.A.King]

That of course isn't an amazing new insight, but the merits of predictability just isn't something I often see discussed. So I decided to make a thread. Not that bad ends don't have their place.

I'm not sure that predictability is the right word here. To me, something is only predictable if I wasn't supposed to see it coming. Certain stories just have certain expectations with regards to the ending and when an author meets those expectations, he isn't so much writing a "predictable" ending as he is fulfilling his side of the deal with the audience. You as an author can of course play with those expectations but you can't expect everyone to be okay with that. The overall enjoyment of a story can be significantly harmed by the ending. When you’re expecting a happy ending then you don’t mind the suffering in the middle because you believe the happy ending will make up for it. If suddenly turns out there is no happy ending then you’ve come to the end of a book/movie only to realize that you didn’t enjoy half of it. Some people may like that kind of twist better than the happy ending they were expecting because of how different it is but they are probably in the minority.

The problem is that people often do say that they like twists, they just don’t want the twist to be that the opposite happens of what they wanted to happen. Therefor you’ll see stories were they are desperately trying to convince you of the fact that the obvious expected outcome won’t be the one that will happen so that they can then have the “twist” be that in fact the obvious thing did happen after all. THOSE are predictable endings to me because you can still see it coming from a mile away but the story still doesn’t want you to know it.

In a Rom/Com we all know that at the end the guy gets the girl (or whatever the two leads may be get each other). You expect it, you want it. It’s the whole reason you watched/read something advertised as a rom/com. This kind of happy ending is not one I would describe as predictable. Sometimes however you have a movie where they are just desperately trying to convince you that their story is different. They will do everything they can to pretend that this is not the kind of RomCom movie were the two leading actors end up together only so that you can have that last minute twist in which they do end up together after all.

It’s okay to have a typical ending, it’s not okay to pretend you won’t. It’s usually best to meet expectations and give the type of ending people want in your type of genre it’s almost never a good thing to be “predictable” because to me at least that means most people are correctly guessing parts of your stories that you wanted to surprise them with.

[Sapphire Guard]

Structural rules are useful, but adhering to them too strictly causes its own problems.

I would dispute that MOS example, the dramatic tension is not 'will he or won't he', it's 'what will happen when he does in a way that can't be hidden'

[Tyndmyr]

Structural rules are useful, but adhering to them too strictly causes its own problems.

I would dispute that MOS example, the dramatic tension is not 'will he or won't he', it's 'what will happen when he does in a way that can't be hidden'

That might be the intent, but I think the drama is lacking all the same. It's really hard to sell the audience that everyone'll hate superman for saving them. We've got an awful lot of prior knowledge here, so the idea that Superman is in any kind of danger from public opinion is a reach, and you can't reasonably expect the audience to be on the edge of their seats over it, yknow?

Adhering to the rules lazily can make some sort of cookie cutter awfulness, sure. The rules are...a guide for your story. They're not a substitute for the story itself.

[GloatingSwine]

Structural rules are useful, but adhering to them too strictly causes its own problems.

I would dispute that MOS example, the dramatic tension is not 'will he or won't he', it's 'what will happen when he does in a way that can't be hidden'

It won't matter because an alien invasion is already in progress.

That would have worked if the antagonist of the movie were a human like Luthor, because that places a conflict between humanity and Superman that might mean it would make sense for him to conceal himself.

Or if Clark arrived on earth of his own volition as an adult like Mar-Vell and was followed by Zod because then he bears some responsibility for what's happening.

But it doesn't work if it's Superman and Zod. Clark didn't bring Zod there, he had no agency in being there or ability to leave. Him revealing himself as another super-person to contest against the super-people already present doesn't pay off the "should he keep hidden" because all the negative consequences are on the side of him not doing so.

[Sapphire Guard]

No more than any other superhero story, really. You know the person whose name is on the film is going to win, but that doesn't mean it's going to be easy or come with no cost.

Just because I feel like talking about it, in the Mandalorian, they heavily follow 'Western' tropes. So Mando keeps getting into quick draw standoffs because that's a thing that happens in Westerns. But those quick draw standoffs are not designed with bulletproof people in mind. So those scenes make no sense, because they follow rules that presume that being shot is dangerous to all participants, whereas Mando is in no danger at all (or at least at a huge advantage) even if he's beaten on the draw.

That's what happens if the writers blindly follow rules without checking if it's appropriate for the story they're trying to tell. You need to check if a particular rule is appropriate, not just go 'this rule exists,, and if you don't follow it the story is bad.'

[Saintheart]

No more than any other superhero story, really. You know the person whose name is on the film is going to win, but that doesn't mean it's going to be easy or come with no cost.

Just because I feel like talking about it, in the Mandalorian, they heavily follow 'Western' tropes. So Mando keeps getting into quick draw standoffs because that's a thing that happens in Westerns. But those quick draw standoffs are not designed with bulletproof people in mind. So those scenes make no sense, because they follow rules that presume that being shot is dangerous to all participants, whereas Mando is in no danger at all (or at least at a huge advantage) even if he's beaten on the draw.

That's what happens if the writers blindly follow rules without checking if it's appropriate for the story they're trying to tell. You need to check if a particular rule is appropriate, not just go 'this rule exists,, and if you don't follow it the story is bad.'

That's an interesting insight, and I hadn't thought of it that way, but from memory (and my memory could be wrong) I thought Mando generally ended up in those standoffs when heavily outnumbered and/or facing a Jedi. Mass fire gives more chance of a lucky hit, and the armour doesn't cover everywhere even if it does seem to cover most of the major target areas. If that was deliberate then I think some of the tension remains in the encounter and the writers are just utilising the Western iconography. And all of that said I think you've just put the finger on why I found his fight with Gideon pretty anticlimactic, because as said it just didn't make sense. Lightsabers can't cut beskar, or so we're told, and Moff Gideon is facing an opponent who's been in so many hand-to-hand duels it would've been more "realistic" (and more satisfying maybe) for the duel to have been a curbstomp by Mando.

[Azuresun]

Lord of the Rings certainly sets the standard for the quest structure of a story, but even it doesn't go to the predictable. If you're reading it the first time you're expecting Frodo to be the ultimate hero. That isn't quite how it turns out; Sam has to literally carry him part of the way to the final objective (and consider the contrarian, if not tongue-in-cheek analyses that argue Sam is the actual protagonist and hero of LOTR, not Frodo) and one of the series' antagonists - Gollum - turns out to be essential for success in that his own greed prevents Frodo from failing the quest at all! Gollum's intervention is foreshadowed about as explicitly as it can be, but the result still isn't entirely predictable.

Indeed, look at The Hobbit. Thorin, destined hero reclaiming his family's legacy....pretty much fails all the way through. He blunders in with no real plan (something Bilbo calls him out on), gets a town destroyed because of that, doesn't actually kill Smaug, and is consumed by his flaws in a way that makes things much worse for a lot of people, and costs him his own life in the end. Tolkein gets a lot of flack for being the "generic fantasy author", but in a lot of ways, he was far more innovative than most of his imitators.

[Sapphire Guard]

The most obvious one is when he's up against the head of security of that town run by Morgan Elsbeth, but it happens a fair amount. Greef Karga, Toro, Cobb Vanth (Cobb is wearing beskar too,but with no helmet he's still at a huge disadvantage.)

Also people keep holding him up at gunpoint, which there is no point in doing. 'Don't move or I'll shoot' doesn't work if shooting doesn't have any consequences. It's like having a standoff where one side has a paintball gun.Shooting them will hurt them, sure, but the risks far outweigh the benefits.